Saturday, October 20, 2012

Options Considered and Rejected: Reality Sinks In

I have returned to Michigan from Rochester, Minnesota. The gravity of my situation has begun to take shape. Dr Qu Ting Edge referred me to a radiation oncologist for the development of a treatment plan. This specialist recommended seed implantation preceded by a three month regimen of ADP. While in his office this clinician provided my wife and me with a published research article he coauthered The reported outcomes are as follows;
-- 75% achieved biochemical control for the 4 year followup period
--47% experienced  serious urinary side effects, 12% of these patients required minor surgical intervention, 6% required major surgical intervention                                          
--29% experienced  serious GI complications, one of these patients required major surgical intervention
These results struck me as unacceptable, and I so advised the clinician.
This same article cited cryotherapy as being somewhat less effective. Earlier during my visit Dr Q T offered to arrange a meeting with their cryotherapist. After reviewing this article I contacted Dr Q T's office and declined the opportunity to meet with this specialist.
Throughout my research effort I have worked closely with UFPTI. In the back of my mind I thought (a) if indeed I had cancer and (b) it were moreorless localized (c) I may wish to address the problem with proton radiation. I asked Mayo's radiation oncologist to comment on this possibility; he responded as follows: " I would not be inclined to recommend proton or any other external beam radiotherapy whatever a second time."

Throughout my prostate cancer ordeal surgery has never appealed to me because of the all too common side effects of incontinence and impotence. It is even less attractive now that I am 76 with a thoroughly radiated prostate gland.
My focus remains on hormone therapy. I am arranging for a consultation with two seasoned prostate oncologists one of whom is a locally based traditional mainstream practitioner and the other less so in both respects. The latter is described as non-traditional and non-mainstream, and  he is located in California.  It is my intent to have a plan developed by the non-mainstream clinician  to be reviewed, critiqued  tweaked if indicated and implemented  by the traditionalist.
So there you have it, at least for the time being.



No comments: